Last month, Stuart Ariff was given a six year jail term with threeyears non-parole for fraud.

ASIC said its decision to pursue criminal charges against Ariffdemonstrates its commitment to deterring misconduct by insolvencypractitioners.

But businesses who lost millions of dollars at the hands of Ariffsay ASIC took several years to act.

Bill Doherty says a class action is the only way to recover lostmoney.

"All the money that was stolen has been siphoned away and no-one,no authority, no regulator is chasing it," he said.

"So therefore our only option is to look at where the problemarose and the problem arose with ASIC's ineptitude."

Mr. Doherty is also worried action stemming from a Senate Inquiryinto the industry will not stop rogue insolvency practitioners.

He says new protocols proposed by the Government will have littleeffect.

"When you look at the government proposals it is pretty obviousthat very little is going to change other than that the insolvencyindustry are going to have more of a say.

"Even as far as the registration of their fellows and even thediscipline of their fellows and that is ridiculous."

AUSTRALIAN BANKS: May Face Class Action Over Lending Practices--------------------------------------------------------------Chris Vedelago, writing for The Sunday Age, reports thatAustralia's banks could be facing a massive new class action overallegations that their mortgage lending practices have putthousands of families in severe financial stress or at risk oflosing their homes.

Organizers estimate that up to 300,000 mortgage holders would beeligible to participate in the action, which is expected to focuson first home buyers and lower-income households who receivedloans since the onset of the global financial crisis.

The proposed lawsuit has drawn qualified support from law firmMaurice Blackburn, which is already engaged in the country'slargest class action over alleged fee gouging by the big banks.

The potentially landmark case is being orchestrated by retiredBritish insurance broker Roger Brown, who will seek claimantsthrough the Web site takingonbanks.com in early April.

"The people we are talking about are experiencing severe financialhardship through no fault of their own because they shouldn't havebeen given a home loan in the first place or they have been lentway too much money," Mr. Brown told The Sunday Age. "I think thebanks have a case to answer for the irresponsible way they havebeen lending."

The case is expected to be argued under provisions of theCompetition & Consumer Act and the National Credit Code thatprohibit unfair contract terms and reckless lending.

Maurice Blackburn principal, major projects, Ben Slade said therewas a legal basis for challenging the lending practices ofAustralian banks that had "unlawfully" and "wantonly" putconsumers in home loans they were unlikely to be able to repay.

"There are thousands of families out there who are over-committedin circumstances where the institution knew or ought to have knownat the date of making the loan that they would not be able tomaintain the repayments over the life of that loan," he said.

"The only impact of making that loan would be to deprive them oftheir deposit and extract repayments to a point where they couldno longer pay. The bank then moves in on its security -- beingthe forced sale of the home -- leaving these families high and dryand much worse off than they were when they got the loan in thefirst place."

Mr. Slade believes the strongest claims will likely be from thosewho have lost their homes through distressed sales orforeclosures.

There were 1,877 foreclosure applications lodged by banks andother lenders in the Victorian Supreme Court in the 11 months toNovember, up 12 per cent on the same time in 2010. There werenearly 2,500 applications in 2009.

Mr. Brown believes a more liberal interpretation of consumer lawcould see up to 300,000 potential claims from struggling homeowners going back to 2008.

Of particular interest are bank lending practices around theperiod of the global financial crisis, when record low interestrates and the boosted first home owners grant saw hundreds ofthousands of buyers enter the market.

About 1.71 million new loans for owner occupiers have been madenationwide since 2008, including 485,000 for first home buyers,according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. At the sametime, the size of the average bank-issued home loan has jumped by$60,800 to $295,800.

But Maurice Blackburn has stressed the firm's officialparticipation in a class action or any other lawsuit will hinge onthe strength of the claims and securing independent funding tocover the costs of running the case.

Mr. Brown told The Sunday Age that preliminary funding was beingunderwritten by a London-based "international financial servicegroup", which refuses to be publicly named.

Stephen Munchenberg, chief executive of the Australian Bankers'Association, said that the Australian banking system was wellregulated and complied with "very high" lending standards.

"Foreclosures by Australian banks are very low," he said.

Delinquencies of 90 days or more -- which puts a home owner atserious risk of foreclosure -- did increase over the lastfinancial year, although they are tipped to fall following therecent interest rate cuts.

CHASE HOME: Faces Class Action Over Bogus Late Fees---------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that Chase Home Finance makesmillions of illicit dollars a year by charging homebuyers boguslate fees on their mortgage payments, a class action claims inFederal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Dragos v. Chase Home Finance LLC, CaseNo. 12-cv-00155 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

CITY OF FERNLEY, NV: Flood Victims Get Share of Settlement----------------------------------------------------------The Associated Press reports that about 600 victims of a floodcaused by the failure of a century-old irrigation canal in Fernleyin 2008 have received their share of a $10 million settlement.

The settlement funds distributed last month stemmed from class-action lawsuits against the city of Fernley, Lyon County and theTruckee-Carson Irrigation District board.

Under the settlement, Fernley paid $5 million and Lyon County $1.3million, while insurance companies paid $3.8 million on behalf ofseven irrigation district board members, the Reno Gazette-Journalreported.

The Jan. 5, 2008 breach of the earthen Truckee Canal sent a wallof water into Fernley, located about 30 miles east of Reno, andinundated homes. The plaintiffs allege the flood was caused byinadequate maintenance and operation of the canal.

Attorney Robert Maddox, who represents the plaintiffs, said $6million was divided among flood victims, an estimated $3.3 millionwent to attorney's fees, and $700,000 covered expert witness feesand other costs.

He said he "felt like Santa Claus" because checks were given tothe flood victims on Dec. 23.

"(They are) people who desperately needed the money," Mr. Maddoxsaid. "They waited for four years. Their lives were torn apart,and it was nice to get them some of the money."

The settlement reached last year states that the city, the countyand the insurance companies denied any wrongdoing, but agreed tothe deal to avoid further litigation.

But Mr. Maddox said the plaintiffs also might receive settlementmoney from other pending lawsuits that chiefly blame the InteriorDepartment's Bureau of Reclamation and the irrigation district forfailing to properly maintain the canal.

The suits contend the local governments shared responsibilitybecause they knew or should have known the canal was in disrepairbased on previous studies and warnings from the bureau.

Justice Department lawyers have said they have no interest innegotiating a settlement because they believe whatever liabilitymight exist is the responsibility of the irrigation district inits capacity as contractual operator of the irrigation system thatbrings water from the Truckee River to more than 2,500 ranchersand farmers in northern Nevada east of Reno.

At a hearing last July, U.S. Magistrate Robert McQuaid Jr.acknowledged the deal had settled only a portion of the case.

DIOCESE OF ANTIGONISH: Class Action Settlement Amount Reduced-------------------------------------------------------------Aaron Beswick, writing for Herald News, reports that theunpredicted extent of sexual abuse by priests has significantlycut into the cash award that members of a class action arereceiving from the Diocese of Antigonish.

According to a letter sent to members of the lawsuit and recentlyobtained by The Chronicle Herald, the victims are receiving only62 per cent of the amount they had originally anticipated from thesettlement reached with the diocese.

That's because the $15-million settlement, reached in September2009, was based on a prediction that 80 victims would join theclass action. But the extent of sexual abuse by priests hasresulted in about 140 participating in the lawsuit.

Enshrined in the settlement agreement signed by the participantswas a clause that resulted in the victims' individual settlementsbeing pro-rated to the number that joined the class action.

"In other words, every survivor's claim will be reduced by almost40 per cent so that everyone shares the compensation fund equallyand proportionally," says a letter sent to victims by theirlawyer, John McKiggan, in November.

Awards in the suit were based on the suffering and damage to thelives of individuals caused by clerical abuse in the diocesebetween 1950 and 2009.

From the 62 per cent that claimants will now receive on theirsettlement, the payment of legal fees and associated taxes meansthe victims will actually receive cheques for about 43 per cent oftheir initial expected settlement.

That's left at least one class action member feeling cold.

"I feel we are being deprived as victims," said the man, whodidn't want his identity revealed.

The victim, who grew up in a rural Cape Breton parish, said he wasabused from the time he was seven until his early teens. Thepriest warned him not to tell his parents, he said.

"I never told my family because I was too embarrassed and thoughtmy family would not believe me, as the priest would sometimes cometo supper and other functions at our home," said the man. "Thepain was that bad that I got into drugs and alcohol to escape itand the shame, and got into trouble with the law."

The cycle of substance abuse, prison and difficulties maintaininghealthy relationships has continued throughout his life. It's asecret he kept until joining the class action in 2009. He said hekept it secret all that time to avoid the shame it would place onhis family and children.

The priest he says abused him has since died.

The money was meant to be an admittance of guilt by the diocesefor the damage done to his life, he said.

The diocese, meanwhile, is struggling to come out from under thelong shadow cast by the abuse scandal and consequent legalsettlements.

The diocese is faced with declining church attendance caused byparishioners' disgust at the abuse scandal and Bishop RaymondLahey's conviction on child pornography charges.

Bishop Lahey, the former head of the Antigonish diocese,negotiated the class-action settlement on behalf of the diocese.

While offering spiritual guidance to its remaining parishioners,the church is struggling to raise $18 million to cover abuse-related lawsuits, $15 million for the class action and $3 millionfor separate court challenges.

To meet these costs, the church is selling properties, many ofwhich were donated over past generations by the same parishionersit struggles to keep and lead.

Of the $5 million the diocese is seeking to raise from propertysales, it has only raised about $2 million so far, said diocesespokesman Rev. Paul Abbass.

The last of the three payments to class-action members is due inNovember.

"It's a time of change, magnified by all the change and sacrificesmade with the legal settlement," Rev. Abbass said. "We're in theearly stages of rebuilding. We're trying to rebuild a sense ofhope within our people, a sense that things can be different andthat we will do things different."

To that end, the diocese is going through a pastoral planningexercise with its parishes to determine how many churches it cansupport with a declining population. As well, a responsibleministry protocol has been enacted that regulates the interactionsof diocese staff with its vulnerable members to avoid a repeat ofprevious abuses.

ENSCO PLC: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Pride Merger------------------------------------------------------------Ensco plc continues to defend shareholder class action lawsuitsarising from its merger with Pride International, Inc., accordingto the Company's January 13, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission.

On May 31, 2011, Ensco plc completed a merger transaction withPride International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, ENSCOInternational Incorporated, a Delaware corporation and anindirect, wholly-owned subsidiary and predecessor of Ensco plc("Ensco Delaware"), and ENSCO Ventures LLC, a Delaware limitedliability company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary ofEnsco plc ("Merger Sub"). Pursuant to the merger agreement,Merger Sub merged with and into Pride, with Pride as the survivingentity and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Ensco plc.

During the first quarter of 2011, six shareholder class actionlawsuits were brought on behalf of the holders of Pride commonstock against Pride, Pride's directors and Ensco challengingPride's proposed merger with Ensco. The plaintiffs in suchactions generally allege that each member of the Pride board ofdirectors breached his or her fiduciary duties to Pride and itsstockholders by authorizing the sale of Pride to Ensco for whatplaintiffs deem "inadequate" consideration, failure to disclosematerial information concerning the proposed merger in theregistration statement on Form S-4, that Pride directly breachedand/or aided and abetted the other defendants' alleged breach offiduciary duties and/or that Ensco aided and abetted the allegedbreach of fiduciary duties by Pride and its directors. Theselawsuits generally seek, among other remedies, to enjoin thedefendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms.

Three of these actions recently were consolidated in Delaware andthe remaining three recently were consolidated in Texas.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against all ofthese claims. At this time, the Company is unable to predict theoutcome of these matters or estimate the extent to which it may beexposed to any resulting liability. Although the outcome cannotbe predicted, the Company does not expect these matters to have amaterial adverse effect on its financial position, operatingresults or cash flows.

IMMUCOR INC: Awaits Orders on Bids to Dismiss Merger-Related Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Immucor, Inc. is awaiting court decisions on its and otherdefendants' motions to dismiss a class action lawsuit commenced byBabette C. Schorsch in Georgia, according to the Company's January13, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended November 30, 2011.

The Company was acquired on August 19, 2011, through a mergertransaction with IVD Acquisition Corporation ("Merger Sub"), awholly owned subsidiary of IVD Intermediate Holdings B, Inc. (the"Parent"). The Parent is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary ofIVD Holdings, Inc. which was formed by investment funds affiliatedwith TPG Capital, L.P. ("TPG Capital"). The acquisition wasaccomplished through a merger of the Merger Sub with and into theCompany, with the Company being the surviving company (the"Acquisition"). As a result of the merger, the Company became awholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

In July 2011, in connection with the Acquisition, a series of sixclass action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Courts of FultonCounty and Gwinnett County, Georgia, captioned as Hillary Kramerv. Immucor, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2011CV203124 (FultonCounty), Babette C. Schorsch v. Immucor, Inc., et al., CivilAction No. 11A0776-1 (Gwinnett County), Allan Pillay v. Immucor,Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2011CV203339 (Fulton County), LarryMacintyre v. Immucor, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2011CV203397(Fulton County), Irene Dixon v. Immucor, Inc., et al., CivilAction No. 2011CV203567 (Fulton County), and Gilbert Rosenthal v.Immucor, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 11A079463 (GwinnettCounty). All of these actions were brought on behalf of theCompany's public shareholders against, in various combinations,the Company, its individual directors, certain of its executiveofficers, TPG Capital and certain of its affiliates. The actionsasserted claims for breaches of fiduciary duties against theCompany's board of directors in connection with the Acquisition,and for aiding and abetting the purported breaches of fiduciaryduties by the TPG Capital defendants. Some of the actions alsoincluded allegations that the Company's Schedule 14D-9 filed withrespect to the Acquisition failed to provide certain allegedlymaterial information. The plaintiffs sought, among other things,preliminary and permanent relief, including injunctive reliefenjoining the consummation of the Acquisition, rescission of theAcquisition to the extent it is consummated prior to the entry ofa final judgment, and costs, expenses and disbursements of theaction.

The Pillay case was dismissed without prejudice in August 2011;the Kramer, Macintyre and Dixon cases were dismissed withoutprejudice in September 2011; and the parties have agreed to staythe Rosenthal case in favor of the Schorsch case which remainspending in Gwinnett County. In the Schorsch case, which is theonly case currently active, in August 2011 the Court deniedplaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction; and in October 2011the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, which remainspending and which the defendants moved to dismiss in November2011. The Court has not yet ruled on defendants' motions todismiss the Schorsch case.

The Company says it will defend this case vigorously if the caseis not dismissed. At this time, the Company cannot reasonablyassess the timing or outcome of this litigation or its effect, ifany, on its business.

Beginning in May 2009, a series of class action lawsuits was filedagainst the Company, Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson& Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. alleging that the defendantsconspired to fix prices at which blood reagents are sold,asserting claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seekingdeclaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages, costs, andattorneys' fees. All of these complaints make substantially thesame allegations.

On January 11, 2012, Immucor entered into a settlement agreementwith the plaintiff class representatives in these consolidatedantitrust class actions, other than the dismissed cases:

* Warren General Hospital v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, filed May 18, 2009;

* Professional Resources Management, Inc., d/b/a Bullock County Hospital, v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, filed May 27, 2009;

* KershawHealth v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, filed May 26, 2009, voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, March 26, 2010;

* Professional Resource Management of Crenshaw LLC, d/b/a Crenshaw Community Hospital, v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, filed May 26, 2009;

* Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed May 28, 2009;

* Larkin Community Hospital v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, filed May 28, 2009;

* Health Network Laboratories, L.P. v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, filed June 11, 2009;

* Legacy Health System v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, filed June 11, 2009;

* Titusville Area Hospital v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed June 16, 2009, voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, March 26, 2010;

* St. Mary's Hospital, Decatur, of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, filed June 26, 2009;

* St. Anthony's Memorial Hospital, of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis v. Immucor, Inc., Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., and Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, filed July 6, 2009;

* St. Francis Hospital, of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, filed July 6, 2009;

* Sacred Heart Hospital of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, filed July 6, 2009;

* St. John's Hospital of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, filed July 7, 2009;

* St. Mary's Hospital, Streator, of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, filed July 7, 2009;

* St. Joseph's Hospital, Breese, of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, filed July 7, 2009;

* St. Mary's Hospital Medical Center of Green Bay, Inc. v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, filed July 8, 2009;

* St. Nicholas Hospital of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed July 9, 2009;

* St. Vincent Hospital of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, filed July 9, 2009;

* St. Joseph's Hospital of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, filed July 8, 2009;

* St. Elizabeth's Hospital of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, filed July 9, 2009;

* St. Joseph's Hospital of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern District of California, filed July 16, 2009;

* Douglas County Hospital v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed September 1, 2009; and

* Community Medical Center Healthcare System v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed September 3, 2009.

The lawsuits were originally filed in the districts listed. Allof the cases filed outside of the Eastern District ofPennsylvania, except that filed by Ivy Creek of Tallapoosa, LLC,d/b/a Lake Martin Community Hospital, were subsequentlytransferred to the United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania pursuant to orders entered by the UnitedStates Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in In re: BloodReagents Antitrust Litigation. The complaint filed by Ivy Creekwas never formally docketed and it is not clear at this timewhether it constitutes a continuing lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, which is subject topreliminary and final approval by the court following notice topotential class members, the Company will pay $22 million into asettlement fund in exchange for a release by all potential classmembers of the direct purchaser claims related to the products andacts enumerated in the Complaint, as well as a dismissal of thecase with prejudice. The release would not cover potential classmembers that affirmatively opt out of the settlement. Thesettlement is subject to preliminary and final approval by thecourt following notice to potential class members.

NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: More Players Join Concussion Class Action----------------------------------------------------------------According to PlayerInjury.com, more and more former NFL playersare rapidly joining the class action lawsuit anticipated to befiled on Jan. 17 in Philadelphia Federal Court. The concussionlawsuit is necessary, because of the debilitating and permanenteffects of head injuries and concussions that have afflictedpresent and former professional football players in the NFL. Forclose to one hundred years, evidence has linked concussions tolong-term neurological problems. For decades, specialists inbrain trauma have warned about the risks of permanent brain damagefrom repetitive concussions. Former players and their attorneysare claiming that the NFL, as the organizer, marketer, and face ofthe most popular sport in the United States, in which head traumais a regular occurrence, was aware of these risks but deliberatelyignored the risks associated with concussions and activelyconcealed them.

Given the current concussion litigation that has begun between theNFL and many of its former players, PlayerInjury.com has been setup by the players, for the players, to provide one accuratecentralized source for lawsuit information.

Kevin Turner, a former New England Patriot and Philadelphia Eaglewho was diagnosed with ALS in May of 2010 said, "I knew that therewere risks involved with football. When I say that, I mean I knewI had a risk of knee trouble, arthritis, and neck pain. Notrainer or doctor ever cautioned me about concussions and theircumulative effects. I believe that I had well over 100concussions and they kept me playing. We need to protect everyathlete - and that includes our children. Awareness is the firststep."

Former center, Steve Everitt, who played for the Cleveland Browns,Philadelphia Eagles, and St. Louis Rams commented that "there mustbe fundamental fairness with regard to medical monitoring and ourhealth. After being that physical for so long, who knows what thefuture holds."

Former offensive lineman, Joe Panos, now an NFL agent, whopreviously played for the Philadelphia Eagles and Buffalo Bills,stated "that everyone involved needs to understand that we mustmove on after our professional football careers and that ourhealth is vital to both our professional and personal lives."

Britt Hager, a former linebacker for the Philadelphia Eagles,Denver Broncos and St Louis Rams said, "If the NFL had evidenceregarding our health and didn't tell us, shame on them. I thoughtwe were supposed to be in this thing together."

Several former NFL players and attorney, Craig R. Mitnick, Esq.established PlayerInjury.com to provide information and increaseawareness. For a more in-depth description of the current NFLlitigation and related information, please visit PlayerInjury.com.

NETFLIX: Faces Class Action for Misleading Investors----------------------------------------------------Erik Gruenwedel, writing for HomeMedia Magazine, reports that aSan Diego law firm has filed a class-action lawsuit againstNetflix alleging that select officers and directors of thestreaming service enriched themselves while misleading investorsduring a 10-month period last year.

The suit -- filed on behalf of an institutional investor Jan. 13by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP in United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of California -- alleges thatunnamed Netflix executives from Dec. 20, 2010, to Oct. 24, 2011,issued "materially false and misleading statements" to investorsabout the company's business practices and content licenseagreements, in order to main an artificially high share price.

Indeed, Netflix shares reached an all-time high of nearly $300 ashare on July 13, 2011. Meanwhile, the aforementioned executivesand directors together sold more than 388,000 shares of commonstock for more than $90 million.

Los Gatos, Calif.-based Netflix's implosion last October is well-known. The company saw shares free-fall more 75% in October andNovember, after implementing a price hike to its most popularhybrid disc and streaming rental program. Netflix then aborted ashort-lived attempt to spin off its pioneering by-mail disc rentalservice, dubbed Qwikster -- a PR fiasco further undermined by apoorly received mea culpa from co-founder and CEO Reed Hastings.

The law firm seeks to recover unspecified damages on behalf of allpurchasers of Netflix common stock during the aforementionedperiod.

Separately, two Dallas-based law firms have opened an inquiry intothe litigation to determine whether Netflix executives and boardmembers failed in their respective fiduciary duties.

"Because of the severity of the accusations lodged against certainof Netflix's officers and directors, we are concerned about thepossible damage to the company and its shareholders, and the firmshave commenced an investigation to uncover possible breaches offiduciary duties and other violations of state law by the officersand directors," Willie Briscoe, shareholder rights attorney withone of the law firms, said in a Jan. 16 statement seekingadditional plaintiffs.

Netflix, as a rule, does not comment on pending litigation and/ormarket speculation.

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO, CANADA: Algonquin Groups File Class Action---------------------------------------------------------------Mohammed Adam, writing for The Ottawa Citizen, reports that atleast 10 different Algonquin groups are now contesting ownershipof the 36,000 square kilometers of Eastern Ontario that's thesubject of a historic aboriginal land claim, further complicatingalready complex negotiations with the government.

The latest twist in the long-running land claim saga is notice ofa class-action lawsuit against the Ontario government filed bylawyers representing the off-reserve Ottawa Algonquin FirstNation, the Algonquins of Kinouchipirini (Pembroke) and Metis ofOntario. These three groups and many others are challenging thelegality of the land claim by the Golden Lake Algonquin, known asthe Pikwakanagan, saying the provincial government is excludingthem from negotiations over land that also belongs to them. Theimpending lawsuit also includes several individual aboriginals whosay Ontario is interfering with their hunting and fishing rights,and want relief from the courts.

It is the latest blow to the negotiations that have been going onfor 20 years between federal, provincial and the Golden LakeAlgonquin over a vast swath of Eastern Ontario that includes thenation's capital. Six Quebec Algonquin communities led by theKitigan Zibi of Maniwaki, who also claim the territory in questionas part of their ancestral land, recently threatened a courtchallenge, saying they are being cut out of the negotiations. Twoseparate Quebec Algonquin communities are also opposed to thenegotiations. Further muddying negotiations that the partiesinvolved believed would serve as a template for other settlements,several non-status Algonquins and Metis, who also claim a stake inthe land, are opposed to the negotiations and considering theiroptions.

Ottawa lawyer Michael Swinwood, who filed notice of the lawsuit inNovember, told the Citizen that the law requires Ontario to begiven a 60-day notice of any action, and proceedings will likelybegin in March.

"The land claim negotiation currently underway was thought up bythe government. They hand-picked certain people to be involved inthat undertaking and they ignored the traditional hereditarypeople," Mr. Swinwood said.

"We are giving Ontario notice that we will not accept anyagreement-in-principle that they might make with Algonquinnegotiation representatives."

"We've been opposed to the negotiations from Day One. We arechallenging the whole land negotiations because people thegovernment is negotiating with are illegitimate," added GrantTysick, chief of the Kinouchipirini.

The nub of the lawsuit is that since Canada has acknowledged thatAlgonquin territory, which cuts across Ontario and Quebec, wasnever ceded or surrendered, there is no reason to limitnegotiations to a small group anointed by the government. TheOttawa and Kinouchipirini Algonquins say the Golden LakeAlgonquin, the only recognized group that the federal andprovincial governments are negotiating with, at best owns a tinyfraction of the land, and cannot act on behalf of the majority.What's worse, they say, the government has allowed aboriginals whoare not even Algonquin to take part in the negotiations, even asit cuts off true Algonquins from the talks. The negotiations areindeed bringing to the boil long-simmering tensions between thosewho live on the reserves and enjoy government support and funding,and non-status aboriginals like the Kinouchipirini and the OttawaAlgonquins, who often feel neglected.

"The land claim itself is not legal because we have several peoplewho are sitting at the table who aren't even Algonquin. Themajority of people who should be at the table are not at thetable," said Paul Lamothe, chief of the Ottawa Algonquin, who waspart of the negotiations until he left five years ago infrustration.

"When I suggested that everybody should be included, they wantednothing to do with it. We are taking this action to bringattention to what is going on."

Genevieve Guibert, a spokeswoman for Aboriginal Affairs andNorthern Development Canada, was unaware of any notice of legalaction, noting that "progress is being made in the overall landclaim negotiations."

Phyllis Bennett, a spokeswoman for the Ontario Ministry ofAboriginal Affairs, would not comment, citing legal reasons.

"As the matter is before the courts, it will be inappropriate tocomment," she said.

The land negotiations have been controversial since they began in1991. The federal government recognizes 10 communities as beingpart of the Algonquin Nation. Of these, nine are in Quebec,including the largest of them all -- the Kitigan Zibi. The onlyrecognized band or community in Ontario is the Pikwakanagan ofGolden Lake, with whom the land claim negotiations are beingconducted.

The seven-member band council and representatives from nine othercommunities that the federal and provincial governments haveagreed to include in the negotiations make up the AlgonquinNegotiation Representatives (ANR).

A board decides who to accept as an Algonquin in order toparticipate, infuriating those who have been left out.

Over the years there have been accusations and counter-accusationsof phoney Algonquins. In letters to the prime minister, Lamothehas complained to no avail about a "flawed and corrupt" process.

He told the PMO 18 months ago, that when his group left thenegotiations in 2007 for lack of accountability and transparency,it was replaced by a "fraudulent Ottawa community." He says 27people were "parachuted" in from Greater Golden Lake to create thenew community.

STATE OF LOUISIANA: DHH Settles LT-PCS Medicaid Class Action------------------------------------------------------------KSLA reports that the Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) hasreached a settlement in a class action brought by Medicaidbeneficiaries of the Long-Term Personal Care Services (LT-PCS)Program.

Beginning in September of 2010, the Department reduced the maximumhours of LT-PCS to 32 hours per week. The lawsuit claimed thatthis put some people at risk of having to enter nursing homes forcare, and therefore violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

While the lawsuit was pending, DHH created a process for LT-PCSrecipients receiving the maximum number of hours to requestexpedited access to the Community Choice Waiver Program. TheSettlement Agreement extends that option to additional classmembers, who are those LT-PCS recipients that were receiving morethan 32 hours when the new cap was adopted, but are currentlyapproved for less than 32 hours. Over the next three months, DHHwill mail written notices to all persons affected by thesettlement that will explain how to request assistance.

The Community Choice Waiver program provides personal careservices as well as a variety of other services that assist peopleto remain in their homes and communities. DHH will offer waiverslots to class members who apply, if they can show that withoutthe additional services, they will not be able to maintain theirhealth and are at serious risk of nursing facility placement.

DHH will ask the federal government for approval for an additional200 Community Choice Waiver slots. If any of these slots are notfilled by class members, they will be added to the pool of slotsthat are available to others who are waiting for waiver services."Our primary concern is promoting the health and wellbeing of thepeople we serve in the most independent setting," said DHHSecretary Bruce D. Greenstein. "This allows us to move forwardwith our agenda to maximize those two priorities. We arecommitted to right balancing our system of care to ensure peoplehave the best options to remain in their homes and avoid costlynursing home placement."

The plaintiffs in this case were represented by the AdvocacyCenter, co-counsel Steven F. Gold, and AARP Foundation Litigation.

"This agreement is a positive step. It will allow people whosehealth would deteriorate because of service cuts to remain intheir homes instead of having to be institutionalized," said NellHahn, one of the Advocacy Center lawyers who filed the suit.

The settlement "has to be considered a win-win," said Ken Zeller,senior attorney with AARP Foundation Litigation, "It allows peopleto age in the place they know and love and at the same time savesthe state money in more costly nursing home placements."

Preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement has been grantedby Judge Brady of the U.S. District Court for the Middle Districtof Louisiana; a final approval hearing has been set forFebruary 17, 2012.

A copy of the Settlement Agreement and the hearing notice can befound at

UNITED STATES: Iraq Veterans to Get Benefits in PSTD Suit---------------------------------------------------------Michael Doyle, writing for McClatchy Newspapers, reports thatChris Crotte left Sacramento, Calif., for the Army. Seven yearslater, he left the Army in pain.

Now, the 31-year-old La Entrada High School graduate and Iraq Warveteran stands to benefit from a recently approved class-actionsettlement. Mr. Crotte, along with other shell-shocked formercombatants, will be getting aid that once was out of reach.

"It can definitely be beneficial," said Mr. Crotte, who's nowstudying auto mechanics and living in West Sacramento. "Gettingmedical care would be good."

After three years of legal maneuvering, a federal judge in lateDecember quietly approved the settlement that covers Mr. Crotteand about 2,100 other veterans who've been medically dischargedsince 2002 with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Under the settlement, one of several similar efforts now underway, affected veterans discharged with PTSD will get betterbenefits, including lifetime health care and post-exchangeprivileges. The affected veterans had been discharged withdisability ratings that were too low to receive such benefits.

Anthony Koller, for one, is an Army veteran who lives in LittleElm, Texas, about 50 miles north of Fort Worth. He survived 14months in Iraq before being discharged with PTSD. His initial lowdisability rating, though, left the married father of threeadrift.

"We live on a month-to-month basis," Mr. Koller said in a courtdeclaration.

Under the recently approved class-action settlement, Mr. Koller'sfamily will receive health care under TriCare and he can apply forspecial compensation payments, among other benefits.

Mr. Crotte was medically discharged with PTSD in April 2008 aftertwo tours in Iraq as a forward observer with the 17th FieldArtillery Brigade. His back, he said, was "messed up." He sleptpoorly. His mind was jumpy. Officials marked him as only 10percent disabled, and cut him loose.

"I got out, and hit the road," Mr. Crotte said. "I constantlybounced around; I was moving from state to state for a while."

From December 2002 to October 2008, the military medicallydischarged about 4,300 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines withPTSD and disability ratings below 50 percent.

The military services, veterans advocates charged in court, were"engaged in a transparent effort to purge their ranks" and cutcosts.

Under congressional pressure in 2008, the Defense Departmentagreed to grant 50 percent disability ratings to those diagnosedwith PTSD in the future. That policy change, though, came toolate for some.

"The individual service branches have done nothing to addresstheir mistreatment of potentially thousands of veterans theyalready have abandoned," Washington-based attorney Brad Fagg wrotein the lawsuit, originally filed in December 2008.

Joining with the National Veterans Legal Services Program, theattorneys wrangled several heart-rending plaintiffs for theircase.

Mr. Crotte opted in to the lawsuit later, though he said hecurrently had no idea of what he could expect, and when. He'sbeen, like many, a relatively passive participant in thecomplicated world of class-action law.

Another 2,200 potentially affected veterans didn't opt in to theclass-action lawsuit, though they might take individual legalaction.

"Nothing suggests that the settlement negotiations were anythingbut cooperative, fair and transparent," U.S. Court of FederalClaims Judge George W. Miller wrote.

Separately, the Defense Department has created the PhysicalDisability Board of Review, which is empowered to revise thestatus of veterans who were medically discharged with less than 30percent disability ratings from Sept. 11, 2001, through Dec. 31,2009. While the class-action lawsuit was limited to PTSD cases,the special review board can examine any type of medicaldischarge.

Potentially, 74,374 medically discharged veterans are eligible toapply. So far, only about 3,200 have done so.

VALPEY-FISHER: Enters Settlement to Resolve Merger-Related Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Valpey-Fisher Corporation disclosed in its January 13, 2012, Form8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission thatit entered into a settlement to resolve a class action litigationrelating to a proposed merger.

In connection with the settlement, the Company filed with the SECa supplement to its definitive proxy materials relating to thepreviously announced proposed merger of Valpey-Fisher with VFAcquisition Corp., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of CTSCorporation ("CTS"), pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger,dated as of November 17, 2011.

As previously reported, a putative class action lawsuit entitled"Boon Ping Teoh v. Michael J. Ferrantino, Jr. et al. (Civil ActionNo. V356627) (the "Action") has been filed in the Circuit Courtfor Montgomery County, Maryland, against the Company, theCompany's directors, CTS and Merger Sub. The Action was filed onDecember 13, 2011, and first served upon the Company on or aboutDecember 26, 2011. The plaintiff in this Action generally allegesthat the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Companyby (i) approving the merger for inadequate consideration and (ii)disseminating a materially misleading proxy statement inconnection with the Special Meeting of Stockholders to be held onJanuary 24, 2012.

On January 12, 2012, counsel for all the parties entered into amemorandum of understanding, in which they agreed on the terms ofa settlement of the stockholder litigation. The proposedsettlement is conditioned upon, among other things, consummationof the merger and final approval of the proposed settlement by thecourt. Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of understanding,Valpey-Fisher has agreed to make certain supplemental disclosuresrelated to the merger, which are contained in the ProxySupplement. The settlement will not affect the amount of themerger consideration that Valpey-Fisher's stockholders areentitled to receive in the merger.

The Company continues to believe that the disclosure contained inthe proxy statement is not materially misleading and that nosupplemental disclosure is required under applicable law.

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Recalls 500,000 Vehicles Due to Technical Problems-----------------------------------------------------------------Friedrich Geiger and Christoph Rauwald at The Wall Street Journalreport that German car makers Volkswagen AG and BMW AG arerecalling more than 500,000 vehicles due to possible technicalproblems.

A spokesman for Volkswagen, Europe's largest auto maker by sales,said the Company began a recall of 299,000 cars with dieselengines in October last year due to possible problems caused bycracks in the fuel-injection system.

VW has notified the car owners but didn't say how many vehicleshad been recalled so far.

The cracks can occur in VW's Golf, Passat, Jetta, Tiguan and othermodels built since 2009. The Company's Audi, Skoda and Seatbrands are also affected, according to the VW spokesman.

BMW also said it is recalling 235,000 cars of its Mini brandworld-wide due to a possible malfunction of an electric water pumpthat cools the turbo charger.

A spokesman for the world's largest luxury-car maker said therehaven't been any reported accidents related to the possiblemalfunction.

The comments follow a filing by the National Highway TrafficSafety Administration saying that BMW will recall 88,911 Mini andMini Cooper cars in the U.S.

According to the NHTSA filing, the auxiliary water pump that coolsthe turbo charger has an electronic circuit board that canmalfunction and overheat. As a result, the circuit board maysmolder and possibly catch fire.

BMW will notify the car owners and dealers will replace the waterpump free of charge. The recall is expected to start next month.

WELK GROUP: Judge Denies Motion to Compel Time-Share Arbitration----------------------------------------------------------------Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that time-shareowners do not have to arbitrate claims over mold damage in theresort originally opened by television's Lawrence Welk in 1964, afederal judge ruled, noting that the Welk Group has activelyparticipated in the class action for over two years.

Mr. Martinez has filed four amended complaints in that time,claiming the Welk Group and its three partners concealed waterleaks that led to a serious mold and fungus problem.

Now that the parties have finally achieved an operative complaint,however, the defendants said the court must compel arbitrationbecause of agreements that time share owners sign.

Though the agreements do contain valid arbitration clauses thatare enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, U.S. DistrictJudge Anthony Battaglia ruled that the defendants have waivedtheir right to compel such action.

Since the Welk Group and its partners drafted the arbitrationclauses at issue, "it is indisputable that they knew of theirright to seek arbitration," Judge Battaglia wrote.

Yet, the class points out that they pursued this relief only afterreceiving an "unwelcome" order from the court. It also claimedthat forced arbitration would be prejudicial since Mr. Martinezhas already spent two years for a class action.

Though the defendants said previous attempts at arbitration wouldhave been futile, Judge Battaglia did not agree. Even if Mr.Martinez had proposed several classes that would not all have beensubject to arbitration, the defendants could have pursued thoseparties to whom arbitration was applicable.

"By waiting two years to bring this motion, the prejudice causedto Mr. Martinez and the putative class is enough to createwaiver," he wrote.

Judge Battaglia also refused to apply the Supreme Court's recentholding in Concepcion v. AT&T Corp., a close opinion that defendsarbitration clauses against bans enacted by some states.

"Defendants make much of AT&T Mobility, decided in 2011, but thatcase dealt with the enforceability of class action waivers, whichare not present in the arbitration clauses at issue," he wrote.

"The purpose of the FAA, and arbitration in general, is to promotequick, informal, and streamlined resolution of issues betweenparties," Judge Battaglia added, referring to the FederalArbitration Act. "It is not to be used as a back-up plan forlitigation strategies."

The court also rejected the defendants' bid to deny classcertification, a motion that Judge Battaglia criticized as neithertimely nor appropriate.

Mr. Martinez has not yet filed for class certification, anddiscovery has not been conducted, but the Welk Group claimed thatclass certification should be denied based on an alleged conflictof interest among the counsel for the class and Wade Brent, aformer engineer whom the Welk Group is pursuing withcounterclaims.

Adequacy of representation is one of four factors in the class-certification analysis, but Judge Battaglia said the defendantsdid not address any of the other factors in their motion.

"To that end, defendants are encouraged to file a motion todisqualify counsel as the proper means of resolving this issue,"he concluded.

A copy of the Order Denying Defendants' Motion to CompelArbitration in Martinez v. The Welk Group, et al., Case No. 09-cv-02883 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

When it comes to front-end load washers, there are things you needto know.

"If you use the wrong kind of soap you are going to have aproblem," said TallGuy Appliance Repair owner Jody Cottengim.

"I noticed there was an odor . . . sometimes the clothes thatcame out of the washer smelled musty," said front-end load washerowner Tona Rowett.

"Inside there there is a little rubber piece. You need to be ableto wipe those things down and keep them clean," Ms. Cottengimsaid.

"When a load is finished the water doesn't drain completely," saidMs. Rowett.

"The lack of air is a big issue," explained Ms. Cottengim.

Front load washing machines are often touted as highly efficient,but they also come with a host of maintenance needs. They are nowin the cross-hairs of lawyers across the country.

"The nature of the construction of the machine," said ComplexLitigation Group Lawyer Richard Burke, "they breed significantamounts of mold and mildew that's an intractable problem."

Class action lawsuits have popped up against Whirlpool, LG,Kenmore, among others. "Those are all basically putting the faultof the machine on the conduct of the consumer rather than on theengineering of the machine," Mr. Burke said.

The issue, he says, is the design. "The machines cannot cleanthemselves. They don't have enough water to clean themselves,"Mr. Burke said.

He says consumers are not being properly informed about what theyare buying and the maintenance that comes along with them.

"It's dirty water. As that dirty water sits there for let's sayeven 24 hours, if you're done with your laundry until tomorrow.It's going to sit there," said Ms. Cottengim.

"You can do everything you possibly can to think that you aredoing things properly," Ms. Rowett said, "and still end up with amusty smell sometimes."

Samsung and GE are under investigation at the law firm.

If you'd like more information about pending lawsuits or have anissue with a front-end washer, contact the Complex LitigationGroup: 312-220-0000 or info@complexlitgroup.com

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter Chapmanat 240/629-3300.